User talk:TellNo1
Mass Effect Blocked Well I suppose if you have no other way to defend your point of view other than blocking people, then you have succeeded. Congratulations it shows a great deal of character to ban someone who only wanted to help. Point 1. Confirmed Maya is my neighbor and she too prefers to have readily easy to access, and informative information. We also share internet. Which if I chose I could easily change my IP address by resetting my router settings - IP address. Regardless she is another individual who sees the same problems I do. I have no need to make ghost accounts to prove a point. Feel free to review her contributions. Point 2. If nothing else Lancer has equaled if not surpassed the negative effects and comments in regard to addressing issues. I will not deny that we are both at fault for hostile communication. That being said his responses equally resemble internet trolling, and reading the forum rules (if he was not an admin) he would be in violations of as many forum rules as I. In my defense I did offer to brake bread with him but he refused to address the main issue and focused on the trivial points. Point 3. In all things the policies of a forum are as merit-able to debate as the subject content of the forum. As this banning demonstrates the admin policies create a hostile and anti contribution environment. Again I reserve that moderation is always necessary, but moderators that stifle creativity and progress are counter productive. I will always stand up for the concept that maintaining a tradition of poor organization is a bad excuse to limit advancement. (Reassessment) - for clarification. I stand accused of one not knowing that you had to submit a full propose, with mock ups, and receive the community conformation (again the random assortment of players that are currently playing the game and referring to the wiki at the time) before making what is consider minor changed among virtually every other wiki on the net. The admin of this wiki defines Alphabetizing random unstructured lists as a "major change" To sum up 1 cleaned up a page making minor organizational changes and corrected false content. Reverted the information twice as non admin editors reverted it back and in some case basing their revert on supporting incorrect data. It was reverted by Commdor and I reverted I back before I realized he was an Admin. Again sorry about that. Followed Commdors instructions to review the information on the upgrade talk page and maintained a conversation with Commdor on his talk pages discussing the issue (again the policy not the article edit). Note I have more than one conservation on Commdors talk page. After a week of no negative feed back, or conformation from admin, I reverted the information again to the corrected format. Lancer Reverted it back. To verify - if Maya's statements did not count, TempEdit also noted that restructuring would be welcomed in his statements on the Upgrade Talk Page. Again no negative implications to the reorganization were listed. Seemingly retaliatory Lancer reverted other "confirmed" game facts that I added to the Mass Effect wiki. Aside from that I voiced my opinion, in an equal presentation to how my opposition responded to their point. (AKA Lancer) Honestly I believe I was more congenial, but regardless. He drew his own conclusions and thus out of context defined it as insulting and a violations of the forum rules. I think his term was cherry picking. Note I have not used any fowl language or obscene remarks in any of my posts. Any negative points were made in general and not focused on any specific person, contrary to their point of view. I maintain that this policy is interpreted and enforced in a negative manner. I also support that anyone has the right to debate the merits of a policy with the admin. Furthermore freedom of speech imply we have a right to voice our opinion on any topic, again by the definitions of the rules I did not use inappropriate language. There are no sound grounds for Banning my account based on my communication. A closed door policy only supports a competition to publish info rather then a collaboration. I have not read everything that Lancers has posted but based on what I have seen, his objection to change has stunted the growth of this wiki as viewed on many other topics. He may be one of the longest running admin but as there are still debates on the presentation of information about a game that was released so many years ago, it suggest he is intolerant to positive change in place of poor traditions such as the policy in question. Again being clear = I have debated the definition of what is consider major change. And in this debate asking the admin to re-evaluate it. IE: to debate alphabetization of a structureless list it has taken more then a week. That is longer then it takes to play the game on insanity mode. The information, content and format remains the same but in any case where an unstructured list is composed editors should be allowed to change it as a minor change. Add-IE if sniper rifle is listed before, assault rifle and it does not effect sentence structure or context then editors should be allowed to correct it without having it considered before a tribunal of currently active Wikia members. Nor should every edit be reworded by the moderators to make it distinctly their own. This is not an unreasonable point of view. Furthermore consider the stringent nature of these forums, editors should have the right to debate the validity of whether other alterations should being defined as minor changes. What should also be reevaluated is Lancer's justification to delete whatever he considers ilresolvent or unnecessary to game play. On one hand you have science geeks composing chapters on the incorrect classification of planets while on the other hand he can delete practical game facts because he can not see the necessity of it from his point of view. I am not the only one who has noted this contradiction. Now I put it to the moderation in general. Have I really preformed ban worth actions grater then that of the average new editor to this forum, or was this banning necessary to silence my controversial point of view to the Admin's grand picture of the wiki? TellNo1 (talk) 15:30, February 23, 2013 (UTC) :Do not try to argue with Lancer, he is a complete morron and won't understand a thing of what you said. He will only say (again and again) that you broke policy and that your changes are uneeded and unprofesionnal regarding his own standard. Moreover, he will also say that you insult him, that you are close to a vandal and that you want to change something because "you don't like it". --DeldiRe 15:50, February 23, 2013 (UTC) ::I think that is the point of all revision. In general I believe most people would "like" presented information if it was structure properly. I am amazed at the quantity of incorrect facts and here-say pertaining to this Wiki. I get the feeling that Lancer is saying "I have the right to ban you if your disagree because he is an admin." I dont want to believe any admin would ever take that stance, but I can argue that it feels that his perspective out wights the opinion of others simply because he has been around longer. Calling him a "Morron" may be excessive, but in every case he has further assumed that he was being insulted when there is little to no grounds to suggest the assumption. Honestly with respect I question how he became an admin in the first place. This case is a blatant example of exaggeration and jumping to conclusions. :: Additionally if you want to do something constructive to support my position, Please log onto the Weapon Upgrades talk page and confirm that you like the idea of changing the section titles and alphabetizing the list. Also ask your frineds to do the same.TellNo1 (talk) 17:09, February 23, 2013 (UTC) :::I would like to. But I already support your proposition. THen I heard the arguements of Lancer and i proposed to split the page to get another page with more numbers in tabble in order to an easy comparaison of the weapons. But Lancer did'nt bother to listen to us and jumped to a simple "you don't like the current page who is perfect so you want to change it, you are complete unprofessional guys, we keep my version". :::And I will not ask my friends to support you because if I do that, I gonna be accuse of "canvassing". I assure you, there is no way to propose something he do not like. You are either mocked and undo or worse, like you, blocked. --DeldiRe 17:53, February 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::Agreed = dont do anything that would get you effectively banned. If you truly feel that way then you should get with your friends and create a second Mass Effect Wikia page. The data on these pages are free source, thus they have no rights to it. I have been posting a lot on at least 2 other sites. Though I have not really found much useful information from this site. As stated before there is a great deal of missing information here. Not all of my suggestions are accepted but they are at least, listened to. The table idea would probably be welcomed provided you found an easy way to view it by cell phone. Also I am sure there are more then enough techs to help you accomplish that. Personally it's covenant and would be a good addition to this wiki if a compromise to the format could be reached. I am not ready to give up on these pages but I have to agree. I have never seen this level of authoritarianism in any other wiki I have contributed to. It does not make sense nor does it seem productive or professional. Not to say that it is not, but it does seem that way. ::::Regardless Lancer has already confirmed my point, by banning me. If he has any sense of reason he has the opportunity to show it by admitting this banning was excessive and unjustified. I have a strong believe that people are who they chose to be. It will be interesting to see, whether he truly deserving of his Admin status. His about me section states "I will admit when I am wrong so you have no worries there."TellNo1 (talk) 18:21, February 23, 2013 (UTC) :::::If you think that you have completely missed the point of your ban, and as the site Bureaucrat authorised that ban on evidence from wikia, which you still have yet to refute, you are also blaming the wrong person. Garhdo (talk) 18:27, February 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::::Very well, I welcome you to enlighten me. A blanket statement does not define the actual infraction. I cant verify which rule I have allegedly broken if I am not informed of it. There to I am unable to mount a defense if I can expect a Jaded point of view from the bureaucracy. If your going to be fair about this then be fair. It's all well in good to preach ideals but if your actions are going to betray you then I still proved my point. ::::::1)If the issue is the same IP address then you have an up hill battle. I live in Ohio where whole towns use the same IP address and internet hot spots are commonly shared. Furthermore having a friend that I can shake their hand is no different then having a friend that I commonly messenger from another part of the world. In either case they both have a justified right to present their point of view. If you would like I am more then willing to call you and allow her to give you a peace of her mind just to verify her existence. I can tell you this much, she is pissed and I sure she will have a long worded complaint when she returns from her appointments. ::::::2)If it was pertaining to Commdor he is the only other Admin I have had a conversation with. As such I was seeking his point of view and I cant see where that is wrong. I expected a justified explanation so that I could understand Lancer's reactions from someone who obviously knows Lancer. ::::::3)Under the definition of Major Change my proposal does not constitute a template change. The format and design remained the same. What does apply under Major Change is "Category functions redefinition" Considering this particular information was relevant to incorrect data rather then redefinition, confirming it with Admin is more appropriate, than casting a week long vote. Data that can be confirmed = My first response above applies. ::::::4)If it pertains to Reverting the page. I was warned by Commdor and followed his instruction. I got at least one positive response or negative input pertaining to the reorganization. Not to say Commdor did not inform fully but with a little additional communication I could have avoided Lancer's Warning. When I debated Lancer's warning, I was banned. So I apologize for not being able to exactly see what triggered this Banning. From my perspective it seems as if Lancer was simply retaliating. In his warning he acknowledges Commdor initial warning thus this suggests that the rebuttal of his warning was what instigated his request for the Banning. Please correct this misconception. TellNo1 (talk) 19:08, February 23, 2013 (UTC) :::::::Well I guess I should have expected this. Several people have the same controversial point of view, so rather then addressing the issue they ignore it, accusing the accounts to be sock puppet accounts. Multiple Admin have been on the Wiki for the bulk of the day and still none have accepted my offer to prove that more then one person can share an IP address. Maya is a living, breathing human being and I will happily put her on the phone if anyone wishes to prove this, or do you have another method of proving her existence? I suppose next I will be accuse of being DeldiRe as well. :::::::In all accounts Lancer was losing the debate. Technically that's not true. It appears more like he was jading it, so that it would not be addressed in the first place. I have seen nothing to suggest that he did not promote this banning as a retaliation. He had already made his point and refused to listen. This seems like a desperate attempt to silence controversial perspectives rather than fair enforcement of the rules. I hold no ill will towards Lancer simply disappointment and pity. :::::::I have been more then cooperate with this Banning, but the Admins unwillingness to be forthcoming and address the issue is unprofessional. I have stated my case and they have refused to reply. I have sound merits to back up my point of view yet I have not been offered any in return. So I maintain that this is not "Justice."TellNo1 (talk) 22:23, February 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::You know what, this is probably the rudest way that someone has gone about this. I specifically stated that the site B'Crat will review the case. He has not been on yet. So you will have to wait on him. Get off your soapbox, stop ranting, stop yelling, and someone will get to you when they can. Lancer1289 (talk) 22:46, February 23, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::Hum I stand corrected. I thought Garhdo was the site B'crat. Guess I should have looked at his link. Here I though I was being Ignore. My apologizes, both to you and the B'crat. Regardless the more of your posts I read, the more I realize I dont need to prove my point about you. You misuse the term professional way to often, and it is clear you have been abusing your position. This will be interesting.TellNo1 (talk) 23:06, February 23, 2013 (UTC) ---- Welcome Hi, welcome to ! Thanks for your edit to the Weapon Upgrades page. Be sure to check out our Style Guide and Community Guidelines to help you get started, and please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Commdor (Talk) 22:29, February 15, 2013 Weapon Upgrades Page I am going to be quite honest with this one because I was dealing with another issue earlier and this got through. After reviewing the relevant pages, what you have for that page is confirmation of several issues with the data, and that is ok to fix, but what was never discussed was the massive reorganization of the page. That was never discussed or agreed to. Now, you are free to go back and fix any data problems, which you have confirmation on that they are inaccurate, but you are not permitted to reorganize the page again without discussion on it. It was never discussed how to reorganize the page, no proposal or sandbox was given to show how it would be reorganized, or was it agreed to. Large scale changes require discussion and agreement first, not after the fact. You cannot reorganize an article under the guise of fixing inaccurate information. Lancer1289 (talk) 02:21, February 23, 2013 (UTC) :: The thing is it is not technically a reorganization. It can be miscued as such because you may be looking at it as a big picture without reading the find print. Ps That was not an insult. I say that because you misunderstood what I was saying on another issue. Please refer to my note below. Back on topic; The titles are incorrect. There is nothing called a cooling upgrade in the game. Much like correcting the incorrect content data the section titles are false. As for the only "RE-Organization" I did do. I put it in alphabetic order. ::(PS on the talk page for this page others did agree) but anyways. If sorting a list into alphabetic order needs to be agreed upon by a council of random players who are only a council because they are the only players currently monitoring the pages at the time, then this wiki has no hope for it's admin is micro managing it to the point of destroying information sharing. That should be obvious to all. I think several people have lost the grasp of what it means to be a shared information site. Nothing against you but this is "redunculus". Massive reorganization? It should not be this difficult to move a little bit of information around without changed content. This is not what anyone I know would consider more then a minor change. The information and format is the same simply the titles are corrected and put in order. Something most would consider Basic Organization. Commdor even stated that it only needed to be discussed on the Up-Grade talk page which is why I did not bother with a new forum. If each moderate can make up there own rules as they go along then how does anything get done? ::Note:The implication on the other page was that we should avoid being close minded, not that you were close minded. On the other issue I don't believe you are giving it the opportunity it deserves. You come off suggesting that it is something that it is not only to support your position. Thus you sound irrational when you present your case, and I get that is not what you are trying to do. This is just an observation, again I am not trying to be insulting.TellNo1 (talk) 03:10, February 23, 2013 (UTC) :::When someone tells you why something was done, what you do not want to do is further insult them, and you have just done so again. There is a fine line between constructive criticism, and insulting, and you have crossed that line, twice. Contrary to your belief, I am not destroying information sharing, I want however people to follow procedure, which you have failed to do in one case. Also saying that I'm single handily giving the wiki no hope, a.k.a. killing it is just yet another insult. There is no micromanaging here, it is nothing more or less than following procedure. If it slides once, then it will slide again. :::What you seem to fail to grasp when it counts is that there is a procedure for how things are done, and while you did follow it on one count, not one but two admins tell you that reorganization requires discussion. You did not do that, and you are refusing to do that. You changed the entire way the article is structured, that is a major change, not simple reorganization. At no time was the reorganization of the page discussed, just the information contained within it. :::And FYI, there are not separate rule books for everyone. Commdor specifically talked about the information contained within the article, not the reorganization. At no point was a major change to the article structure discussed or even talked about. The talk page is an appropriate place, but what was discussed did not give you any grounds for the reorganization you did. You want to talk reorganization, I am more than happy to do so, but not if you continue to insult me further. Lancer1289 (talk) 03:25, February 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::Look friend nothing I say is going to make a difference if you are unwilling to listen. You cant identify the difference between constructive criticism and insult. Perhaps you are too jade from how others are painting you but it is not my place to judge that. You are pouring too much emotion into your point of view and this is why other patrons are not taking you seriously. Obviously this is why they are viewing your responses are retaliatory. You may not realize it but you're making assumptions and misreading between the lines. ::::A large majority of the people that post info to these pages are doing so to improve them. They are not out to jade the information for their own purposes. ::::Facts are facts and they can not be disproven if they are indeed facts. ::::Sloppy disorganized information is difficult to reference. Obviously reformatting a page and changing the basic format needs to be discuses but moving thing around so that they are in the correct sections and in order only makes it easier to reference the information and minimize recapping it. I have reorganized whole chapters on other wikis while remaining within their format and they thanked me for it. This is the first wiki that I have ever had to argue alphabetic order? If the format followed a set designed then it would be understandable but there is no visible reason why the Upgrades are randomly organized other then that was the order in which they where posted on the page. ::::As for procedure please. The holes in the information support what I am saying. If I wanted to changed the basic format of the page, IE move the images, change the table design, separate the flavor text on independent pages, etc. that is what the procedure should imply. ::::Correcting false information & spelling errors, combining and organizing the information within the same format = that is the reason every wikia member has the ability to edit articles in the first place. If you can not see that your interpretation of "major change" reflects "micromanaging" then you choose not to see. ::::I have no problem addressing these issues like an adult but its up to you if you choose to do the same. If you want anyone to see you as more then retaliatory then you will have to refine your replies and stop assuming every sentence is derogatory. ---- Issue 1 Section titles Format suggest that everything is categorized by what it is or what it does. As braking the categories apart to define everything by what it is would constitute changing the format of the page and drastic reorganization braking up the sections is not advisable. Fact there is nothing called a cooling upgrade in the game. As the sections are based on what they do the logical conclusion is that the section titles are incorrect. By correcting the section titles to conform with the rest of the article this improves format and makes the information easier to refer too. Someone with an item that does Heat Dampening would not have to look for Cooling Upgrades to find references for other upgrades that also do Heat Dampening. Solutions = Correct the incorrect section titles. Issue 2 Reorganizing the sections in alphabetic order while maintaining format. Meaning none of the information changes merely it is moved up or down on the page to simplify the process of referring to the information. Solution / logic = I dont know but it falls under common sense. (2 post on the talk page agreed that the information would be easier to reference in alpha numeric order.) Considering the information was not arranged in any specific order it hardly seems an issue worth debating. It has no negative effects. Issue 3 Adding Missing Game Facts. It seems that to avoid incorrect edits it would be wise to add game facts so that readers do not draw false conclusions and thus waste the time of asking or posting false information. By having game facts available players can review and verify the facts before making an assumption. The appeal of Facts is that someone has to disprove it thus Game facts should be welcomed. Issue 4 Correcting misinformation. Refer to 3, but where 3 does not apply. Any case where information can not be substantiated - then and only then should it be up to a consensus. ---- ::::Now I ask you. What is gained by posting a forum that asks, "Hey guys, anyone have an issue with me adjusting the categories in weapon upgrades so that they are alphabetic?" ::::Do you really believe there would be that much opposition to it? ::::There could be some debated to Issue 1, but it is a Fact that there is nothing call a cooling upgrade in the game. If we could debate the issue on one then we can obviously justify the others that dont match. In the end of a long drawn out debate where only the moderators objected to the fans, readers would only question why they opposed such an insignificant change in the first place. ::::The fact that I have had to spend a whole week debating alphabetization has only cause the moderators to lose face, and they will continue to do so for as long as they prolong this. That's my rebuttal. You can view it on its merits or assume that I was insulting you. In ether case you will either prove me right, through assumption, or have a hard battle fighting the truths and an impossible one fighting the facts. And to be clear I am debated your use and interpretation of the procedure. Pertaining to this minor change. I dont care how it reads the merit is how it hinders page advancement and discourages participation. TellNo1 (talk) 05:55, February 23, 2013 (UTC) Blocked You have now been blocked for suspicion of abusing multiple accounts, a valid perma-ban offense. This action was done in full communication, with full knowledge of, and with the consent of the site Bureaucrat, who authorized this action. The site bureaucrat at this time would like to extend the offer for you to present evidence in your defense and if they find it plausible, the ban will be overturned. Because of this, you have been left with the ability to edit your talk page to present any evidence in your defense below this message. The evidence for this block comes from two admins who noticed that the edits from three separate accounts were of a very similar nature, using similar structure, used very similar wording, and have continued to do so. The amount of similarities between the sentence structure alone was too similar to ignore and raised considerable suspicions in two admins. Based on this, a request was sent, and it was confirmed that two of the named accounts share IP addresses. Normally this is not enough to warrant a ban, but the other evidence presented, the case went over the line. You again, have been extended the opportunity to present evidence in this case to refuse the evidence presented against you and if the site Bureaucrat finds it plausible, then the ban will be overturned. And to be perfectly clear, this action was not taken to resolve the ongoing conflict, rather because a serious site policy had been violated. If the ban is overturned, the issue will continue to be debated. Lancer1289 (talk) 06:33, February 23, 2013 (UTC) Refer to top of talk page. 1 Mass Effect Blocked = My position to this issue. TellNo1 (talk) 15:30, February 23, 2013 (UTC) Suspicion? That holds water --Officer Eddie Lang (talk) 20:45, February 24, 2013 (UTC)